Talk:Gisele Bündchen/GA1
GA Review[edit]
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: The9Man (talk · contribs) 20:29, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
- Is it well written?
- A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
- B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
- A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
- Is it verifiable with no original research?
- A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
- B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
- C. It contains no original research:
- D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
- A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
- Is it broad in its coverage?
- A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
- B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
- A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
- Is it neutral?
- It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
- It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
- Is it stable?
- It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
- It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
- Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- Overall:
- Pass or Fail:
- Pass or Fail:
Notes[edit]
Here are few concerns so far.
- Personal life - In this section, the relationship with Leonardo DiCaprio is not closed properly.
- Links to 1 disambiguation page Sapucaia.
- giselebundchen.com leads to 403.
I am currently going through the inline citations. It may take a couple of days to complete. Thank you for your understanding.
- The9Man (Talk) 08:51, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
- Thank you for reviewing! Are you saying there is a ref issue in the Personal Life section for the relationship with Leonardo DiCaprio? ⌚️ (talk) 17:16, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
- Not concerned about the ref. From a reader's point of view, the section looks incomplete. It jumps from the first relationship to second without closing the former. I feel it should be mentioned why/when they got separated for complete information. Here is an example of what I mean - Naomi Campbell#Personal life
I am open to discussion. - - The9Man (Talk) 19:23, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
- Not concerned about the ref. From a reader's point of view, the section looks incomplete. It jumps from the first relationship to second without closing the former. I feel it should be mentioned why/when they got separated for complete information. Here is an example of what I mean - Naomi Campbell#Personal life
Congratulations Trillfendi, the article has passed. - The9Man (Talk) 05:55, 10 April 2020 (UTC)